However, a representative of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), one artists group involved in the process, said their concerns had been addressed and that the group supported the bill.
Under the bill, Webcasters that make less than $250,000 per year would pay about 10 percent of revenue, or 7 percent of expenses, as royalties. Whichever figure is greater would be used. Companies that make between $250,000 and $500,000 a year would pay 12 percent of revenue or 7 percent of expenses.
Rates for retroactive payments dating back to 1998 would be just 8 percent of a company's revenue or 5 percent of its expenses, with an installment plan availible. The ceiling for qualifying as a small Webcaster would be raised to $1 million in annual revenue for the year 2004, the last year that the bill's rates would be valid.
Larger companies would pay the original fees as laid out by the Librarian of Congress.
Looking on from their positions scattered around the country, the small Webcasters are dizzied by the experience--even if they've still got another significant hurdle to pass.
"You have to stop and remember that without exception, the most political thing any of us had ever done before was vote," Roe said. "Now here we spent seven months doing something it took the House seven minutes to pass."
Article comments
1 - no spam
I find the requirement of webcasters to uniquely log all listeners disturbing. I assume they're also required to turn this over to someone or what's the point. The TV networks have lusted over this kind of demographics for decades.
Does this new law supersede the Internet child protection act, or whatever it was called? Which required parental concent before gathering such data?
2 - Eric Olsen
For our slashdotty friends - we have a post today dealing with the Webcaster Alliance suit against the RIAA in the context of all they (RIAA) are doing to make the world a better place.